A custodial sentence of 9 years and 6 months and a further probation period of one year imposed on a 91-year-old former monk for historical offences of indecent assault, buggery and attempted buggery was unduly lenient, and was replaced with a custodial term of 12 years.
A total extended sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment for historic offences of attempted buggery, indecency with a child and indecent assault on a man committed by an individual aged 20-25 against his neighbour aged 10-14, whilst lenient, was not unduly so. Although aspects of the judge’s reasoning had been flawed, the offences […]
A total sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment was increased to 20 years where a judge had been wrongly advised that his sentencing powers in relation to offences of buggery committed when the offender was under 18 were limited to 12 months’ imprisonment.
An appeal against a sexual offences prevention order was dismissed as the order had not been imposed based on the fact that a specific person had been sexually abused, but on the basis of an earlier conviction, and later behaviour which posed a risk to the public of serious sexual harm.
New evidence as to a complainant’s reliability and truthfulness, which was not disclosed at the trial in 2001 of a man charged with indecently assaulting under-age children and attempted buggery of an under-age boy when he worked at children’s homes in the 1970s, would not have affected the safety of his convictions even if it […]
An offender’s convictions for historic offences of rape, buggery, attempted rape, indecent assault and murder were deemed safe, as the judge had given the jury adequate directions as to the dangers of delay and its effect on the evidence.
A judge had correctly directed a jury on the issue of doli incapax that they could look at the circumstances surrounding historic sex offences to assist them in their assessment of whether a 13-year-old boy had been aware that his acts were seriously wrong.
A sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment was appropriate in the case of a 63-year-old man who had been convicted of numerous sexual offences against three teenage boys.
Although cross-examination which had invited impermissible speculation by the defendant should not have been allowed, that was insufficient to support a conclusion that his conviction for rape, buggery and indecent assault was unsafe, there being no other basis on which to undermine the jury’s acceptance of the significant DNA evidence.
Deficiencies in a judge’s summing up were such as to render a conviction for historic child sex offences unsafe.
